PRENTICE v. USA

Filing 7

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE on 01/27/2016, that Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Certificate Releasing Property from Lien [Doc. # 1 ] seeking relief from his restitution payments be denied and that this action be dismissed. (Taylor, Abby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STEVEN DIXON PRENTICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15CV383

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner and frequent pro se litigant, filed a Request for Issuance of
Certificate Releasing Property from Lien [Doc. #1], which the Court treated as a Motion for
Return of Property. Plaintiff’s Motion has now been fully briefed and is before the Court.
Plaintiff was convicted in this Court in United States v. Prentice, No. 1:01CR31-1, of receiving
child pornography videotapes in commerce and of using a minor to engage in sexually explicit
conduct for producing videotapes. He received concurrent sentences of 180 and 210 months
imprisonment, which he is currently serving. The Judgment [1:08CR31-1, Doc. #23] in that
case also ordered that Plaintiff pay $8,100.00 in restitution, which is the subject of the present
filing.
Plaintiff claims in his Motion that although the original Judgment ordered restitution
of $8,100.00, that amount “was later determined by a Federal Lawsuit . . . to be the sum certain
amount of $4369.20, and Mr. Prentice has overpaid in excess of $15,000, via the Bureau of
Prisons (B.O.P.) Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.” (Plaintiff’s Motion at 2.) He cites

to the “Federal Lawsuit” lowering the restitution amount as “State of North Carolina Medicaid
v. U.S. Attorney Office, inserted into United States v. Prentice, No. 1:01CR31-JAB-1
(M.D.N.C., Oct 22, 2009).” (Id.) He also states that the United States Attorney’s Office
continues to request the payment of interest on the restitution. Plaintiff requests that the
Court extinguish the lien against him, declare the debt satisfied, release any property held by
the United States, and return his $15,000 with interest.
The United States filed a Response [Doc. #2] to Plaintiff’s Motion stating that the
$8100.00 restitution amount was never reduced, that the “lawsuit” to which Plaintiff refers
was simply a substitution of the party to which restitution payments were to be sent, and that
as of May 20, 2015, Plaintiff had paid $8,120.00 and still owed $1,867.77, consisting of only
accrued interest. The Government also notes that to the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge
the original Judgment imposing the restitution, his efforts to challenge that Judgment have
been rejected in prior litigation and are not properly before the Court.
Following the Response, Plaintiff filed two documents. The first is a Reply [Doc. #4]
in which he acknowledges that the Government’s Response is “‘fairly accurate.’” However, he
also states that the Government “acknowledges” in its Response that the actual amount owed
was $4,369.20 and that Plaintiff overpaid by $3,730.80. He also raises a challenge to the
accuracy and validity of the original Judgment imposing restitution and points to several other
cases or filings where he also attacked that Judgment. Plaintiff later filed a “Mandatory Judicial
Notice” [Doc. # 5] in which he details what he claims are excess or erroneous deductions

2

from his prison trust account by the Bureau of Prisons. These allegedly improper withdrawals
are the subject of other lawsuits filed by Plaintiff, which he references in the filing.
In considering Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court notes that to the extent that Plaintiff is
attempting to challenge the Judgment in his criminal case, this Court has previously considered
and rejected those claims, and Plaintiff may not re-litigate those issues in a Motion for Release
of Lien.

(See Order [1:08CR31-1, Doc. #60].) Moreover, however Plaintiff’s Motion is

construed, it is without basis. The Judgment in Plaintiff’s criminal case ordered that he pay
restitution of $8,100. Because that amount exceeded $2,500, interest was not waived or
modified, and because Plaintiff did not pay the entire amount within fifteen days, interest
automatically accrued according to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f). Despite Plaintiff’s multiple attempts
to attack that Judgment, the amount of restitution was never reduced in any way. Pursuant to
a Motion [1:08CR31-1, Doc. #51] filed by the Government, not a lawsuit filed against it, the
sentencing judge did substitute the entity to which the restitution was to be paid. (Order to
Substitute Payee [1:08CR31-1, Doc. #52].) That Order was upheld on appeal. In no way did
that Order reduce, adjust, or change the amount of restitution owed by Plaintiff. Nor did the
Government at any point acknowledge any lower amount owed or any overpayment by
Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is baseless.
In Plaintiff’s later filings, he attempts to raise arguments challenging amounts deducted
from his prison trust account by the Bureau of Prisons. However, any challenge to the
deductions by the Bureau of Prisons would have to be brought through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in
his district of incarceration after exhausting his administrative remedies. Plaintiff indicates
3

that he is presently pursuing such a claim in his district of incarceration. Therefore, the present
action should be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of
Certificate Releasing Property from Lien [Doc. #1] seeking relief from his restitution
payments be denied and that this action be dismissed.
This, the 27th day of January, 2016.
/s/ Joi Elizabeth Peake
United States Magistrate Judge

4